I believe it's been calculated (maybe because of the huge taxes on cigs in the UK) that smokers, all told, easily pay their way for any smoking-related treatment they might require on the NHS. Plus they die earlier meaning less state pension paid out. That is, they are net contributors via sales tax.
I've heard this before, but rarely seen credible citations. Most I've been asked to review are making unjustified assumptions. ie: that people dying young are not taxing the medical system the way long-lived people do. Especially in this day and age of productivity among senior citizens. I'd like to see numbers.
It also doesn't address the other social costs, which are lost 'value years', economic cost of lost opportunity, and human suffering in loved ones caused by the smoker's premature death.
Having said that, the 'sin tax' approach is closing the gap on linking raw economic costs with users. Without that type of policy, the tobacco and alcohol industries would certainly be drawing from economic externalities.
Meanwhile - yes, non-smokers have every right not to be bothered by the stink of cig smoke. But an element of balance would be nice sometimes - like when I'm downwind and 50 yds from the people sheltering in the waiting-room at the railway station, it really isn't necessary to have someone tell me over the p.a. that "Smoking is not allowed on this station sir". Get a life sometimes.
Probably more than just smoke, though. Litter and fire risk. Even considering smell, wind can shift unpredictably, as anybody who has sat near a campfire can attest. ("white rabbit!")
Oh, and I recall a Brit guy got busted after a new law was passed banning smoking in company vehicles. It was his company iirc
I'll have to check, but I think that was a case with a fleet vehicle. Commercial vehicles are usually divided into "fleet" (shared by many employees) vs "individually operated" vehicles.
Sort of like saying, "I own this restaurant, so I should be able to smoke in it, my employees' health be damned."
